Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II: a quick summary

Rather uncharacteristically, Canon has given us very little access to its PowerShot G1 X II or information about it, but they did give us a chance to handle a prototype model back at CES. The camera itself won't be available until April, but we got the chance to get our hands on one at the CP+ 2014 show in Yokohama. We'll bring you hands-on photos from the show if they are. However, it's still possible to deduce some information about the camera, based on that experience and the information that has been made available.

New form-factor - No built-in viewfinder

Unlike its predecessor, the G1 X Mark II doesn't follow the styling of the regular G-Series of camera. Instead it more closely resembles the company's EOS-M mirrorless camera, with some of the G-Series' direct controls grafted onto it. The lens looks a lot like the original G1 X's but now features twin control dials - one of which spins smoothly for controlling features such as manual focus, the other of which features click-stops, for controlling settings such as aperture.

This re-crafting of the body means there's no longer room for a viewfinder - instead those who want one can pay extra for an optional electronic unit. There will be some who'll resent having to pay extra to buy an additional viewfinder, having already spent $799 on a compact camera. But, given how indifferent the tunnel-type finder was on the equally expensive G1 X, it's a move that may actually be welcome to anyone who wanted a smaller camera, or who prefers using the rear screen.

The G1 X II will be sold in Europe with an accessory grip included; US models will not bundle the grip, instead it will be offered as an optional accessory.

The camera market has progressed tremendously in the two years since the original G1 X was launched, with the arrival of Sony's RX100 and ever-smaller mirrorless models, leaving potential buyers with considerably higher expectations of how small and how capable cameras can be. For the G1 X Mark II to succeed, it had to be smaller and faster than its predecessor. It's certainly achieved the former, and has added NFC-mediated Wi-Fi to broaden its capabilities and appeal. Canon's rather likeable touchscreen interface is a nice addition, too.

Multi aspect-ratio sensor

Canon says the G1 X Mark II is based around a new sensor, though it's always hard to tell exactly how much has actually been re-engineered. Although Canon's marketing material talks about the Mark II having a 18.7 x 12.5mm sensor, we're pretty confident that it's actually the same size as the G1 X's (nearer 18.7 x 14mm).

Sensor sizes:

Camera Name

Sensor format

Crop Factor

Sensor dimensions (mm)

Sensor area (mm2)

Nikon D5300

APS-C

1.53

23.5 x 15.6

367

Canon Rebel T5i

APS-C (Canon)

1.62

22.2 x 14.8

329

Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II

1.5"-type (4:3 crop)

1.92

17.9 x 13.4

240

Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II

1.5"-type (3:2 crop)

1.92

18.7 x 12.5

234

Olympus OM-D E-M10

Four Thirds

2.00

17.3 x 13.0

225

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 II

1"-type

2.72

13.2 X 8.8

116

What's changed is the way that area is used. In a manner that will be familiar to users of Panasonic's GH1, GH2, LX3 and LX5, the G1 X Mark II never uses its entire sensor, instead taking different crops from it.

The G1 X Mark II's pixel dimensions show that it's cropping from a sensor that's larger than the imaging area, allowing it to offer the same angle-of-view for both the 3:2 and 4:3 aspect ratios.

The 18.7 x 12.4 mm sensor size that Canon has been quoting appears to refer to the 3:2 crop area - the sensor itself is the same size as the one in the original G1 X.

So, while the camera's sensor is the same size as its predecessor's, all the aspect ratio modes offer a 1.92x crop factor, rather than the G1 X's 1.85. This is how the camera is able to switch between 3:2 mode and 4:3, while still offering the same diagonal angle of view, and also how it's able to offer a slightly stretched 24-120mm equivalent range from a 12.5-62.5mm lens (rather than 28-112mm from a 15.1-60.4mm unit).

Improved lens specifications

As well as offering a slightly broader zoom range, the Mark II is also able to boast a considerably faster aperture range. F2.0-3.9 not only means it's at least 1EV faster throughout its zoom range, it's also considerably rangier and brighter than the standard 18-55mm lens you'd usually find on the Rebel we compared it to earlier.

The brighter lens also gives the G1 X II a considerable advantage over the current zoom compact crown holder - Sony's RX100 II. Taking sensor sizes into account, the Canon should receive around 0.7EV more light at the wide end of its lens, and 1.7Ev at the long end. Its 24-120mm range is also usefully more flexible than the RX100's 28-100 reach.

Overall

We're also promised that the focus speed of the Mark II has been improved over that of the original camera, and that it now offers a 5cm Macro mode for closer focusing. If both these promises are lived up to, then it goes a long way to addressing our biggest concerns about the G1 X.

The other point to address is the value proposition (or 'price' in common parlance). Just like its predecessor, there are two ways of looking at the G1 X II: as a large and wildly expensive compact camera, or as a cut-price 'Rebel' with a faster, more capable lens built in to a much more compact body. Which you think is true will depend on your perspective, but if placed alongside cameras such as the Ricoh GR, the Fujifilm X100S or the Nikon Coolpix A, the price suddenly doesn't seem so outrageous.

We look forward to getting to have a proper play with the PowerShot G1 X Mark II, and will report back as soon as we have.

Comments

Wrong Product Planning. G1X is mostly perceived as another G series. results are also similar. What Canon should have done is to place this camera in a separate category of "Bridge" camera like Sony Rx10 in a small form factor. With top L-class optic and a high read out sensor of this size and a dedicated super Macro at a price point 1200-1400 .With stellar results and an all in one solutions would have made a big impact.. It almost matches the price of a entry dslr with an average lens.

So, Canon should cut the sensor size by one third, add a L quality lens for that small sensor and charge nearly double the price? That sounds like an amazing product planning to me. It is a great sense of relief for many that you don't work at Canon's product planning.

aftab, Don't blabber something for the sake of commenting. rather make your point. the comment said same size sensor. Be constructive in thoughts rather than vomiting out with stale sarcasm. get a life.

Tray again and check. your papa may be a camera mechanic at the neighborhood store. good credential .

But not small or light enough to compete with RX100 series, and with its size and price it's competing against ILC's which offer far more flexibility.

I don't really see where this camera fits in. After you add the EVF especially. Just look at the new Sony A6000, the Fuji X's etc. which have even bigger sensors. Might as well get a real system camera if you're looking at something of this price, size, and weight.

I'm currenly deciding between the Sony A6000 or a Fuji X-A1, however, this G1x II, is now in the running to. The 24-120mm focal range is all i need (95% of the time). It has a high native flash snyc and HSS support to if i need it. The form factor looks nice, it's about the size of the Sony with the kit lens. So the Canon, seems to me to be geared towards people looking for a small (note I didn't say smallest) one lens, high quality camera. The only obvious downside is the very short 240 shot per charge battery life.And the only question I need answered is: Has DR improved significantly over it's predecessor? If it has, then I'll be deciding between 3 cameras instead of 2.

The RX100 is probably the closest thing to it from a technical level, perhaps some of the fixed focal length large sensor compacts too... Regardless, I do think it competes with mirrorless ILCs at a certain level. What mirrorless system has a 24-120mm f2.0-3.9 lens? Not a one AFAIK, Fuji's kit lens probably comes the closest but it's still a far way off and it's larger.

Now, any decent system is still far more versatile, you're not gonna get <f2 portraits with shallow DoF at longer focal lengths from the G1 X MkII, or UWA, or FE, or a constant aperture zoom, or a longer tele, or true macro, etc etc. A lot of people don't really care for all that tho... That being said, I don't know how large of a cross section there is of people that just want solid low light performance at 24-35mm (maybe up to 50mm if aperture doesn't drop too quick) with some extra range all in a small yet not pants pocketable package.

Seems like the RX100 does much of the same, just doesn't go as wide or as far but remains far more pocketable. I'm sure there's market for the new G1 X tho, and with Canon's branding/marketing that'll get stretched plenty. I can see a lot of people cross shopping between this and a GM1 or a Fuji, a 35-50mm equivalent prime on those cameras would probably perform better but it's one more thing to carry, and their kit zooms don't go as far nor are they as bright at 24-28mm.

I think it will sell very well. I bought a very low shutter count G1X a few weeks ago for $400 and after a couple of thousand shots find I like the IQ, the size and the weight compared to my DSLR. In England 60 owner reviews averaged out to 8.8 out of ten rating. It won't replace my DSLR but I will carry it around allot more and won't worry about damaging it due to the lower cost. Also for a second camera the last thing I need is another collection of lenses and that cost allot as well. Most of the people who slam cameras online have never picked them up or shot with them they just look for all the bad points in the reviews. Get a life and go out and take some good photos instead of whining about a camera you won't try out or buy! As for the G1X check out Marco Nero's photos with one on www.pbase.com or the landscape shots at www.witnesstobeauty.com both impressive to say the least.

Funny thing, on Canon USA's webpage about the G1 X II I watched a video about continuous shooting (burst) and the video is for the G16. They showed a guy holding a Powershot camera up to his eye to operate the camera... but the G1 X II has no OVF. Obviously they don't have all the marketing materials finalized for this.

If this was available 18 months ago I probably would have bought it instead of the G15.

I wonder if the extra lens reach and speed will come at a cost? I'm frequently impressed with how good the lens is on the G1X and put that down to Canon engineers sensibly not pushing what was possible in such a small design. We'll know soon enough if anything has been lost.

I wouldn't change anyway. Even an inaccurate optical finder is way better than nothing and a clip-on is way too impractical. Bad move.

Picture Quality is the King. None of the current Canon P&S cameras have the deep color,contrast of the old Por-1 and G6 or even the old Elphs with UA elements. Pro-1 had miniature L-lens. G6 had super f2 lens.People only look for focus speed, evf,tilt lcd. no one does care for absolute pic quality. All todays models have the average lens quality. no aspherical, UD, UA or super UD elements or fluorite or fluorine or super spectra coating.the result is current G models have low contrast, shallow color,.only thing improved is low light grain and some DR. and those are mostly achieved at processing level. not at absolute lens or sensor quality level.

The G16 uses Sony BSI sensor appearing on almost all P&S on earth. cold low contrast pics. Canon is yet to bring the ultimate sensor and lens combination to the bridge market. sony did it with RX10 and is a huge success..Fuji has a the good lens on their X20. L class lens and high end sensor is the ultimate success recipe.

You just can't have used a G1X. The lens on that is stunning. I'll admit the jpeg engine is pants, so it's not best as a point and shoot but RAW files processed in Lightroom are very clean and detailed, even after you've processed in all the punch, colour and contrast you need.

The RX10 is no comparison. I've yet to see an image from that in any sort of difficult lighting that hadn't blown the highlights to Africa and back and the lens appears to only be any good if you keep it from the extremes. Odd that you'd call the RX10 a huge success.

When shooting HD video the lens becomes less wider (~28mm eqv, instead of 24mm) due to the heavy crop from the 4:3 actual sensor size.I have no clue what was Canon thinking making the sensor 4:3 ratio.These days, Smartphones, Tablets, Computers and UHD TVs have 16:9 ratios.So this sensor waste resolution and lens field of view.I not saying the sensor should have been native 16:9, but a 3:2 sensors seems like a better compromise.To add insult to injury you can only make hi-res movies with this camera in 16:9 aspect ratio. So those making videos for the web or retina iPads, need to crop even more from 16:9 by then the wide end is more like 35mm.

Because Canon's P&S / compact cameras have always been put much more emphasis on stills than on video - as opposed to at least some series of Sony / Panasonic.

This is why they didn't add a natively 16:9 sensor but, for stills, a MUCH better choice: native 4:3 AND 3:2 sensor (it being multi-aspect).

Should they have gone for strictly 16:9, making sure even the corners are sharp, they would have needed to heavily crop in 4:3/3:2 stills shooting, meaning - both the FoV would have reduced compared to a natively 3:2-optimized lens + sensor combo

- a lot of sensor pixels (those in the cropped areas on the right / left) would have remained unused.

Given that gaining 1 mm on the wide end requires a LOT of additional glass (hence the lack of small AND bright 24mm DSLR / m43 zooms), this would have meant 24mm would only be possible when shooting 16:9. With stills shooting, it'd start at around 28mm, which would render the camera a no-go for a lot of us 24mm fans.

Of course, they could also gone the Pana (GH1/GH2/TZ7 etc.) / Nokia (808 / 1020) way by adding additional pixels on the left/right to make the sensor three-standard-native (3:2, 4:3 and 16:9). They haven't done this - most probably because of the fact that, again, Canon has never emphasized video. Also proved by the video recording quality of the G1X Mk I being absolutely cr@p with tons of aliasing and moire.

Are you infreakingsane? This isn't a video camera. They aren't going to make video the priority in a stills camera. Go buy a video camera that can take stills and quit blabbering on about whatever you can find to whine about no matter how little sense it makes.

The G1 X has a large sensor and now the new aperture in the G1 X II will make for even better bokeh that such a large sensor allows for (by way of narrow depth of field...also thanks to the new faster lens). I have no reason whatsoever to justify spending money on the G1 X II and yet I'm pretty damn sure I'm going to buy it on day one from my local camera shop.

if Canon product rep video claims IQ noise for G1XMkII is better at ISO 1600 than older G1X at ISO 400 ... gives me added interest and impetus to get the MkII ... now that it has a 24mm eq ff fov ... my only misgivings is absence of VASS (vari-angle swivel screen) and extra cost to have evf and a more ergonomic, yet still inadequate, grip ... but IQ of older G1X matched the EOS 60D ... will MkII match or exceed IQ of EOS 70D (even if AF/fps/video cannot?)

will a prosumer PowerShot Pro1X come later with all of the above BUILT-IN !???

Impressive lens speed at the low end, but f3.9 at 120 is not the greatest, at least for me.

I would also pass because there is no built-in view finder.

Try to take a picture on a sunny day, with a foot or two of snow covering the ground, using an LCD screen! Such circumstances demand a view finder. No I don't want an optional one!But not everyone uses the camera the same way, or under the same conditions. To each their own.

No doubt that cameras will continue to make strides very quickly, like they have done in the past couple of years, but quicker. Thanks to fierce competition! So if this one doesn't exactly fit certain needs, another manufacturer will most likely put a better spec'd camera on the market in a year or so.

The bulk of this price is the lens for the large sensor. Try to find a large sensor lens that is f2 bright and 5x zoom. The lens is what distinguishes this camera from the crowd. Equivalent DSLR or m43 lenses either dont exist or are above 1000$

Comparing the price of a camera not yet released with the current price of a camera that has already been superseded with a successor might be a sensible thing to do for a canny buyer, but it’s not fair to use this to blame a producer.

Both Olympus OM-D EM5 and Fujifilm XE-1 were more expensive even *without* a lens when they were released than the G1X II will be with its fast lens included.

Sam's point is well taken. With today's mid-range compacts, size and weight have to be primary buying considerations to choose them over a low-end EVIL or SLR camera, which are now about the same cost.

You can't argue that for what it can do it is overpriced. I believe in paying 80% of what a product is worth but getting 120% of my expectation. This is not the case for G1X. Oh.. if I want to shot with a light camera, I will just buy a RX100 ii.

Yeah, I agree, that's what's gonna make or break this camera... Those kinda lenses just don't exist for mirrorless systems or DSLR, the constant aperture 2.8 zooms are larger and expensive, even something like the Sigma f1.8 zoom still dwarfs this... Fuji's kit zoom doesn't go as wide, as far, or as bright, and it's probably the closest approximation.

If the aperture doesn't shrink too much by 35-50mm I could see tons of people cross shopping this vs smallmirrorless bodies... And it's probably ideal for those who're already invested in a DSLR system but want a more portable backup (without investing in another system), the RX100 fills that same role for many but this looks far more attractive in use IMO, just slightly less portable.

Sam, rrccad is dead on. The lens alone, should it perform similarly to the G1 X in terms of sharpness, is worth the price of the G1 X II alone. Add on the much improved min focus ("macro") distance, touchscreen, responsiveness, etc. and the G1 X II destroys anything in the same price range.

This looks like the best compact camera currently on the market depending on how the AF preforms. My only problem with it is if you want an EVF it makes this camera a $1200 compact. The add on EVF is obviously nothing more than a crash grab. For the $800 price tag it really should have been included.

As you have already noted Josh152, the G1 X II is likely the best camera of its kind, and as such, is worth every penny of its asking price. The lens alone is worth the $800. Yes, $1100 is a steep price for camera plus EVF, but like anything else, you get what you pay for, and you'll always pay more for the best.

my original G1 34-102mm zoom (back in 2000) was C$1299 list, but got it at C $1199... in order to get 24mm ff eq fov, I got Canon's lens adapter +C$34 (no kidding; pricey, too for a piece of plastic), and 0.8x WA Lens converter (making it only 27.2mm fov; and still not really wide enough) it cost +C$269 (ouch), then got Canon's 0.7x WA Lens converter (finally making it 23.8mm fov (24)) it was meant for the newer G2, but it worked perfectly with the G1 optically (yes, another C$269 plus taxes mind you!).Added downside to my G1 Lens adapter was that is was a thread mount, not a bayonet mount like later G models. It was horrendous time-waster to dismount any lens because the thread was fine plastic (if switching to a tele converter lens; also pricey) forcing me to dismount adapter off the body, then unthread the lens from the adapter, it was always difficult to thread the lens to the adapter, so I got two adapters (another +$C34).Total to get just WA24kit =1199+34+269=$C1502+sales tax

Too bad only one of those shots (the one with the specs; URL: http://timg.eprice.com.tw/tw/dc/img/2014-02/11/4892920/tunacat_5_Canon-_d40fdf01a39007a14836dfce12f3b1ad.jpg ) are shot at the widest setting (12.5mm non-equiv), and only at f/5.6, making it impossible to properly assess the lens quality at wide open at 24mm equiv. (In addition, only the center of the frame is in focus.) I'd really like to know how the lens behaves at 24mm equiv, wide open.

The portraits are shot at a considerably narrower 17.4 and 20mm, while the other closeup at 16.9mm.

I don't get it. How does Canon manage a 12-60/2.0-3.9 with this size, when a Lumix 12-35/2.8 is 4 times as large?What's the "micro" all about with MicroFourThirds, when they don't manage such lenses like Canon did. Even if the lens was 2 times longer because it cannot retract inside the body, it would still be much smaller than the 12-35! I thought I was happy with my GM1 and 12-32, as most of the time I thought I would leave the kit-lens on, but this G1X just kills my GM1!

Yeah oluv, that lens on the Canon G1 X II is going to prove to be its key spec. If the lens is anywhere near as good as Canon claims, then the camera is going to be hugely popular and provide serious competition to the mirrorless offerings from all the other players, whether they are fixed lens or interchangeable lens models. LET THE GAMES BEGIN. :)

I'm going to hazard an answer to your question. The 12-35 is constant f2.8 aperture, and also has to account for a lens mount. Both features take up room. The Canon doesn't need a lens mount, so it's smaller, but you don't have the option of swapping out a telephoto or wide angle lens either.

I loved the lens on the G1X mark I, it more than made up for Canon's mediocre sensor. If the lens on the mark II is as good as the one on the original G1X, in addition to being a stop faster, it will be a great lens. The original G1X lens was already better than any of the pancake zoom lenses or kit lenses on M43 or NEX, and now they have made it a stop faster. I agree that it would be great if a similar lens was available for an interchangeable lens camera. The pancake zooms available now for ILCs are slow and most of them optically poor.

"The pancake zooms available now for ILCs are slow and most of them optically poor."

Exactly. This is why for example the NEX's, with the 16-50 PZ, are no match for the new Canon camera. If the latter delivers great IQ, of course. Given that the R1, with its similar (but, also because of the APS-C sensor, larger) 5x 24-120 lens was tack sharp even at 24mm/f2.8, I have high hopes...

This is a pretty awesome upgrade: you now get a camera with a bigger sensor than m4/3, with a longer zoom range than the standard kit zoom and a brighter lens than most, all in a body close to the size of the GM1. Really impressive.

Go to camerasize.com and see your "close to the size of GM1".Then report back and apologize or at least explain your definition of close. As an example, the moon is close to the size to Jupiter. This way we can get a full grasp of your lack of spatial relations.

The GM1 is significantly smaller, but whether that matters or not would depend on how you carry it... Neither one will comfortably fit in regular pant's pockets, either one would fit in cargo pants. I imagine either one would fit in a lady's purse quite easily too, so it's all relative. On your shoulder or wrist both would be a huge relief compared to a DSLR.

The G1X will go farther and brighter at wide angle with it's kit lens, sure, and if that's your priority then it may very well demolish the GM1 or anything from Fuji/Sony... OTOH you're not gonna have the versatility of a relatively fast 90mm equivalent portrait lens, or UWA, or FE... Any of those can easily be had as very portable lenses for a mirrorless body.

I think the key spec for the G1X is gonna be how fast the zoom remains thru it's range... If it's down to f3.5 or less by 50mm (or worse, 35mm) then I'm guessing a lot of people would rather carry the ILC with one prime + a pancake zoom, unless wide angle is your priority (and not UWA). If it remains somewhat faster at 35-50mm then I'm gonna guess it'll carve out a big following even without Canon's marketing muscle.

The viewfinder on every G camera I've ever owned or used is at best an approximation of what you're actually photographing. But then again I was a Leica M user for many years, so that's a tough act to follow. The G cameras are misunderstood by many; it's so much more than a high end P&S.

I'm a "need a viewfinder" guy though, and the reason is that sometimes you need that approximation of what you're photographing. I'm not asking for much. Just a tunnel that can be used when it is too bright out for a screen. Depends on who you are and what you shoot. If this is used as an indoor/social photography kind of camera, then there is no need for a viewfinder.

The Mark 2 looks to be a superb advance. At least for one who depends on one camera for general photojournalism. The lens is awesome and we have confidence in the canon optics. 24mm and f2.0. That makes for more photo options an better still photos, which is the goal. I used a Leica system for 40 years of pro photography and want a compact, quiet, reliable and quality still camera.

Sure, I could wish for the moon and criticize the location of the some control or lack of a feature. But this camera's niche is backup for pros shooting with multiple lenses or for those of us who want high quality in a single package. I do not have other cameras. My G1X is my bread and butter - and the Mk 2 will replace it perfectly.

It retains the articulated LCD screen - which is mandatory. I may be pressed against a wall to get an interior shot and can hold it above my head or at my chest or at knee level and use the LCD to compose. Thanks Canon. I just hope the battery has more juice.

I have been using the G1x for years, I never used the viewfinder, so the lack of a viewfinder is no drawback for me. I think the new zoom range of 24-120mm is very convenient, I found the current zoom range of the G1x a bit too narrow, so this alone makes the upgrade worthwhile. I hope they removed the awkward video button on the back which I press all the time inadvertently.

I am an OVF guy. But I also want a compact camera that has a large enough sensor and fast enough lens with 'general purpose' zoom range. This is the first camera that ticked all the boxes for me except OVF. But an useful OVF will make such a camera too big and will defeat the purpose. Great job Canon. Now I will be able to take this camera out when I don't feel like carrying 5DIII+24-70/2.8II and not worry about IQ in different lighting and shooting conditions.

I thought the same thing. Until I realized how compact a decent camera can be when you don't have to carry extra lenses, caps, bag, change lenses, etc. This is part of the appeal of the Fuji although 35mm only seems a little limiting.

Question to Gurus here and to Canon: Why can't such a beautiful lens be available as a EF-S lens option for the Rebel DSLRS like T3i (that I have)? That will offer the best of both worlds: 1) The flexibility and interchangeable lens aspect of a DSLR when you need it 2) A general good walk around lens that is BOTH bright (f2) and with decent 5x zoom range. Request - Make such a lens for EF-S too !

The issue is currently the DSLR lens options either start at f3.5 (not BRIGHT) or are just too HEAVY and PRICY - and even if they exist (like the L lens) don't cover a 5x zoom range. For this reason, I am planning to get this camera once it comes but since I do not like to haul 2 cameras, I may have to let go of the DSLR.

The bottomline with this awesome lens - even with a smaller sensor than APS-C, there is more light reaching the sensor and more bokeh at full open - so no point of keeping my T3i DSLR with 18-55mm kit lens other than the occassional use of the Nifty Fify 50 mm f1.8 prime.

True - flange distance is a factor that makes lenses bulkier. Also, I remember cutting of flange distance was a premise of Micro Four Thirds that was supposed to translate to reduced cost/bulk, but some of those lenses are still more expensive than Canon EF-S ones. If such a lens is available on a Micro Four Thirds, will gladly buy that system. Basically I am after a walk around lens with specs that this offers: f2 (for good bokeh/low light no flash photos) and good zoom range of 5x and any interchangeable lens system (be it m43) that offers it at price similar to this - I will switch to that system.

You won't really see a lot of 5x zooms out there regardless of system, I'm guessing because the demand to go up to 100-120mm (from 80mm-ish) just isn't that high. What you'll usually see are slower 3x kit zooms, larger and MUCH more expensive constant aperture zooms (f2.8, f4, Sigma's f1.8, etc), and then the 10x superzooms which also tend to be slower.

A 28-280mm equivalent super zoom for M43 is just about the size of an average 3x kit zoom for a DSLR tho, so that's worth weighing up if longer tele reach is what you're after. A premium kit zoom like Fuji's 28-80-something equivalent f2.8-4 gets closer to the G1X's lens but it's still slower and covers a narrower range. You won't really find anything quite like this in ILC land...

That being said, this lens is only gonna be particularly bright at 24mm, that's fine for low light landscape/architecture and what have you but might not be so favorable for people shots... And many landscape shots are often shot at smaller apertures anyway just to get more detail across the whole scene...

It's still a compromise, just a different one. It might be more convenient for sure (not swapping lenses, even if it's just between two small pancakes), but it all depends on what you're shooting. Kind of comes down to convenience (all in one package) vs versatility (primes, UWAs, teles, etc).

This is quite an abuse of the work mark 2 ever, this camera is pretty much new, new lens barrel, new body, for other cameras, this would have had a different suffix or model numberG1X 'n' or G2X is too confusing, if they're continuing this line of large sensor G series in parallel with the G17-19, they're gonna need a new naming scheme

Perhaps the most interesting camera from Canon in a long time. Amazing lens range and speed on such a large sensor. Glad to see that they retained a movable LCD of some kind. Shot-shot time with RAW capture and AF speed will be a make or break for this camera.

Cons:Video has taken a back seat, which is why Pannys are often a better buy. No mic out, no mention of ND filter (removed from the GiX??), no mention of focus peaking, and worst of all, no 1080/24p and 1080/60p modes. Then again, video output from Canon cameras have always been pretty lousy, so the lack of these features probably don't matter anyway. Anyone buying this camera will be doing so for photography purposes mainly.

I doubt they'd have taken the 3-stop ND filter out of it, that's something that even comes standard in the G15's line. Unless they've added a filter ring attachment to make you buy all that separate, too, but I doubt it.

Wow. That's really sad if true. Incidentally, same price as Sony a6000 with 16-50mm kit zoom.... The only thing that could make we want this Canon is if the price drops sharply and a CHDK port becomes available.

Well Mirfak, I'm glad that Canon chose to keep their video offering as simple to use as possible. If you are a wannabe cinematographer on a budget, then yes, the Pannys are probably a better choice, but if stills are your thing and video is just a nice extra function to play with from time to time, then Canon's G1 X II is definitely the best choice. I'm a stills guy.

I think they're just going for the best possible single image in a small package. If people need video with less compromise than an all-in-one compact camera, Canon has some nice video cameras for that purpose.

Most of the comments here are ignoring what's new and noteworthy about this camera: the sensor size and aperture range. Presumably this will allow it to compete well, in terms of IQ, with a wide range of premium cameras including some well-regarded M4/3s and DSLRs, as well as the Sony RX100 and RX10, not to mention the other large sensor compacts with zoom lenses.

The sensor size, aperture range, and zoom lens in a relatively compact body make this a unique camera, and Canon deserves some recognition. This really sets a new standard for what it is. The 180 degree screen articulation and price point are also notable.

It you require a viewfinder, well, there are plenty of options; but most digital cameras today don't have viewfinders, and there are plenty of folk willing to trade the optical or electronic viewfinder for a more compact camera. Compare it to the Sony RX10, for example, which has twice the volume. The LCD screen works perfectly well as a viewfinder in many situations.

I think the lens of this camera is quiet a remarkable feat.At this size such a zoom range with that speed is just unheard of. I thought that it couldn't be done when the first rumours surfaced Even in µ43 land which has a very similar sensor size the similar lenses are much larger. look at the constant F2.8 for comparison.

It does miss a viewfinder. I would rather have it a tad bigger with a viewfinder and no in body flash. With just an accessory flash like the eos M.

Still a remarkable technological feat that deserves good reactions. I have been very critical on Canon releases the past few years. Primarily becouse of their laziness with their rebel line. This deserves an real fair chance.

come on canon....Is this all you can do?For this size, at least view finder should included.It is same size as Fuji x100 or XE2 with lens........I know for zoom lens like that, it is still smaller than other lens.... but.....

I wish people would shut up. If you have nothing nice to say, please keep your nonsense to yourself. If there is a legitimate comment to be made that's fine, but everyone thinks their preferences need to be broadcast to the world. News flash: nobody cares what you personally want.You acknowledge the lens is impressively compact, but even so it takes up a lot of room and you still want a viewfinder included. In what form? Lousy OVF I have on the G1 X and never use? An expensive EVF that eats power? If you need a viewfinder go buy one of those cameras you mentioned and keep your opinion about everything under the sun to yourself.

I was waiting for this kind of camera from canon for long time. But for personal needs, I rather want short range zoom lens and keep smaller. And view finder will be big plus for me. I just wanted to say what I think for G1x....That's all. I didn't know this forum is for to say only nice thing......However, lens speed impressed me.

Bram, and you don't have to read my comment. See how that circular bit of logic works? Not everything in this world has to be either "thumbs up" or nothing. The internet culture has allowed anonymity to replace common human politeness. If I were at a party and someone sounded off in a negative way about something that had nothing to do with them and I was trying to enjoy I'd say to their face "who asked you?" In person things that are done online would be met with incredulity and possibly even a polite "keep your negative opinions to yourself, please." How's that instead of "shut up"? I figured I'd meet kind with kind, but you're right. Please, OP, quit harshing everyone's buzz.

@Howard, Hi, I really didn't think sean's post was a big deal. The forum is for discussion and your post comes off as a little over the top. By the way, this is posted in a friendly way. To me everyone's take on the camera is welcome both pro and con.

My tone wasn't meant to be harsh, but that doesn't mean I don't want people to treat other humans in forums as they would treat other humans in person. As such, I can't give this guy a sideways look or even a dirty look that is the nice equivalent of "would you please shut your cake hole and quick like?" Social graces afforded to us by face to face communication are not possible here. So read my post as though a very calm but direct person was saying all of that with his eyes. If he's going to ramble off an unsolicited, idiotic opinion then he should expect the same response here that he would get if he had the gaul to say it to someone's face. "Hey Larry, look at this cool new camera that I totally think is awesome!" "It's not as awesome as you think it is....I mean look at what the stupid designers wasted a year doing and they didn't even do it as well as I could have!" "Larry, you're a dickbag."

I am also canon user and I was keep checking canon's new camera to change. Speed of lens is impressed but why canon excluded view finder from old model. The first generation of GX1 looks sexier than GX1 Mark II. I'm not a professional but I like to taking pictures. To me, taking picture by using view finder is much fun than with out it. Taking picture by just looking at screen is like taking picture with smart phone. Probably, I would consider to buy this after checking complete reviews from DPREVIEW. And I will buy optional EVF. I was just saying the first impression of this camera. Why you are taking so hard??? I don't get it. I can see that you are arguing every one's bad comments and that is not polite.

I wish I felt sorry for telling people how to be, but when it comes to basic etiquette I'm very unforgiving. It is not rude to have a criticism of a product or suggestions for improvement or to state personal preferences, but your statement was overwhelmingly negative and in no way constructive. Come on, is that the only comment you can come up with? See, sounds condescending and a bit egomaniacal to imply you have a handle on what's best or could do it better yourself. You strongly implied Canon was foolish for not doing something that is obviously the only way to go, and you did it before you thought for two seconds about why they might make a design decision. If you want something that fits your certain set of needs then why would you give specific model numbers of the cameras that you like and then lament another camera for not being exactly the same? Just go buy those models that are already perfect for you and be quiet about it.

Tell me " howardroark" which client / ad-agency will hire me with this pocket like nonsense on my tripod ... Only people like you will celebrate this another Canon shenanigan to pull money out of your pocket.

Okay "OBI656" if that is in fact your real name! J'accuse!!!Anyway, is that a serious question? Client or ad agency? Who on God's green Earth would ever use a compact camera exclusively in a professional setting? This camera would be great as a backup to your 5DIII or 7D if you're not shooting fast action, but to point out that a compact camera is not a professional piece of equipment/studio tool is a big pile of duh. Canon does make cameras that you might consider for use in a studio/professional setting. This is an enthusiast compact camera, although I'm sure many pro's will be happy to take this small powerhouse into the field if they require something smaller than a 5DIII with a 70-200 f/2.8 IS hanging off the front.

Looking really forward to play with this!One thing though; I never had any problem with the G1 X' bulkyness, so I wonder what the ergonomics feel on this "skinny" one!? I guess I would use the grip add-on most of the time... and the EVF :-D

An ugly, inconvenient and expensive periscope is not a viable option for me. Canon is trying to milk its customers with the optional EVF when in 2014, a camera of that size and price, should have one. If they had done it I would buy right away (if the image quality proves to be up to expected). No EVF, I will look for something else...

Size and price do not determine one feature. This camera has a huge sensor and a huge lens. That much glass is very expensive, especially if it turns out to be very sharp. A camera of this size and this price is designed for image quality, not a single feature that 5% of people think is a deal breaker. Some of us find using a screen a very useful tool. I love the viewfinder on my 7D and still can't comprehend how some people in this day and age can't adapt to a screen. Oh well.

By the amount of people complaining about the lack of EVF I doubt we are just 5%. Most serious cameras are coming with EVF nowdays, unless there are size constraints (which obviously is not the situation here). My guess is the reason for that is that customers wanting a good EVF are WAY more than 5%. Canon is obviously just milking its customers with that expensive EVF. Maybe it works for Canon, but they won`t see my money. Too bad because had the camera an EVF, it would be a very very interesting offer.

I'm afraid that it needs more time on the treadmill, cuz it is still pretty chunky. Its hard to justify that beast of a camera over an RX100 that is WAY smaller, and delivers very similar image quality presumably.This IS really the first enthusiast compact zoom camera that has specs that outshine the RX100 though! Every other camera released has been the usual 1/1.7 drek. This has a bigger sensor AND impressively.. a nice 5x zoom for 24-120 range, vs 28-90. Thats pretty cool.

The lens is enormous and rightly so. Everyone complained about the not-so-wide focal length, the slow min aperture, the lousy macro ability and that has all been fixed and then some....more zoom and all.This wasn't meant to be a tiny camera, it was meant to be a serious camera. Sony has the misfortune of only being able to make Sony cameras, but some people will make the sacrifice either because of the size or because they don't know any better. Variety is the spice of life.

You may presume the RX100 delivers very similar image quality, however this is not the case. How do I know? I had two RX100 and the current G1X produces noticably better image quality. The RX100 is superior in every other way; just not image quality.

This seems by specs to be a very nice camera to compete with Sony. Resolution is 1/2 and video is shortchanged but the lens looks like a winner combined with the sensor.. The resolution of the sensor is kind to the lens and beginners will really appreciate that fact.

Really curious to see how it compares to the Sony RX100 II and how well it handles vs. the EOS-M.

I stopped using my EOS-M when I couldn't take having to keep using the touch screen for basic stuff, how it easy it was to accidentally change settings via touch screen, and using the tiny wheel in back.

If the G1X II works out, maybe the EOS-M3 would also work out. That would help the EOS-M3 catch up a bit closer to the other mirrorless systems out there...

ThePhilips: put the lenses on the cameras and compare then from the top view:http://camerasize.com/compact/#491.335,34.360,534,467,ha,tThe GX1 mkII is about as thick as the smallest u43 with a pancake zoom, but the GX1II has a bigger sensor and a much faster (and wider!) lens...

I don't understand why some people want the smallest weeniest size cameras. I loved the specs of the Sony rx100 but when tried it i realized that smaller is definitely not better. Perhaps a 12 year old school girl may want and need a small camera for her tiny hands, but as an adult I need something to hold and not look like a complete W$nk%r.

" What about adding a very bright, wide, 5x zoom for the NEX or the m43? If such a lens existed (it doesn't), it'd result in HUGE size and weight increase. "

It's an impressive lens, tho it remains to be seen just how impressive it really is... A GM1 with a 20mm/1.7 (40mm equivalent, or 45/1.8 - 90mm eq.) is still in the same size class and that lens is easy to pocket (the 45's a little larger tho). How bright is the G1X's lens at 35mm or 50mm? That's the big question. It's gonna be three stops slower at 90mm regardless...

It comes down to what you're shooting and how much you value the convenience on hand here. If you live at 24mm then this thing is probably an ILC slayer for you (and probably a much better value than a GR or Nikon A)... If you tend to shoot at 35-50mm or you shoot more portraits you might still be better off with a NEX/M43 and a prime + a pancake zoom.

Hope it's much better, quality-wise, than that of the G1X. The latter was horrendous WRT aliasing and moire - see for example the absolutely awful first video at http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong1x/9

When the original G1 X was released, many people complained that it was not as compact as it should be, because of the OVF. Many people also complained that the OFV was so bad that it was worthless. Canon responded by removing the OVF, to make it more compact.

I think it was a good solution- a smaller body, and an optional VF, but most of the traditionalists here get worked up if there is no built in viewfinder. There are lots of other choices out there for them. Maybe the rumored Nikon coming soon will give them what they want? I'm interested to see what it will be.

There may be some IQ improvements, but who cares? These cameras are so much overkill for what most of us do. You can make great 8x10 prints with a 1/2.7 sensor under the vast majority of conditions. I made greawt 8x10 prints with a Kodak 2 Mp point and shoot. That's not even talking about the great compacts with 1/1.7 sensors, or all of the cheap second-hand m43 on the market.

So the argument gets down to usability. In the film days, IQ was identical between the most expensive and least expensive DSLRs, but you paid for viewfinders, f.p.s., etc. We're at that point now with digital. I don't need an extra stop of low light that makes absolutely no difference to the prints I make. I need a camera that I can use. A camera that is responsive, easy to frame pictures in bright sunlight, etc.

Frankly, this camera seems awesome, but limited to the screen, I'll pass.

This camera is not meant for use in applications "most of us" are insterested in. This is a HIGH END compact camera, not a member of the P&S in a full auto mode pack. And coming from someone who knows better, you never made great 8X10 prints from a Kodak 2MP camera, you made prints of snapshots that weren't too horrible to look at.You aren't limited to the screen. Buy the EVF. Everyone hated the OVF because it wasn't perfect and the camera was so big that all the old people in the crowd apparently couldn't lift it off the table. Now it's smaller, lighter, and a GOOD EVF is an option versus a bad OVF being standard equipment. This is a huge deal.

Well, I made 8x10 prints from a 2Mp Kodak that looked as good as the prints I get out of 10, 12, and 16 Mp 4/3 and m43 cameras. And trust me, I have a LOT of printing experience, including with dedicated B&W carbon ink set printers I've set up, and sophisticated (at least, I like to tell myself!) post-processing.

Anyway, your guys' entire argument is undermined by this fact: Canon is offering a viewfinder, for $299! They know as well as I do, as well as you do, that you will need a viewfinder. They want to sell you an incomplete camera, which you'll use, enjoy for a few months or a year, then realize it sucks without a viewfinder, then you'll buy a viewfinder secondhand on ebay for $175, and congratulate yourself on what a "deal" you just got and what a smart shopper you are.

I just checked and my Kodak was 1800 x 1200, or 2 Mp. At 300 dpi, that covers a 6" by 4" area. When you print 8" x 10", you don't cover the whole paper, or you shouldn't, especially when you are framing. You are printing more like 8.5" x 6". That gives you 200+ dpi in either direction, starting with an 1800x1200 image, which is virtually (actually?) indistinguishable from a 300 dpi print. Even printing borderless you would get 180 dpi, and whether or not you could distinguish that from 300 dpi would depend on your subject material, because in many cases 1800x1200 resolves all that you want to see in a print anyway.

Your larger images are downsized to make an 8x10 print, and the color in those condensed pixels is the same color that you get from a good lower-resolution sensor in the first place. Buy a 2 or 3 megapixel camera on ebay, they're out there, and surprise yourself.

Samuel, that's great! I'm glad it turned out to be heavier! Bigger lens I'd bet, but hopefully also a much more robust AF mechanism that would add a lot of weight and speed things up. Doing a size comparison on that website that does that reveals just how huge the lens is on the Mark II. That's a great sign! What do you get in return? Much better macro performance, much faster lens, more zoom, wider starting focal length, and hopefully all in a very sharp lens.

Bob,The point of the print discussion wasn't the PPI but the quality of the pixels. Kodak 2MP cameras were only passable at ISO 100 in bright sunlight. If that's all you care about then you should never, ever use any other camera than that one. Other factors like detail resolution, dynamic range, color accuracy, color gamut, etc. are not necessarily going to make a picture printed at such a small size look awful, but you're sure as hell going to get a better 8X10 from a modern camera like the Mark II here.....and by a far piece.I don't have to buy a 2 or 3 MP from eBay my friend because my first digital camera was a 4MP Sony and as great as it was in the day, by today's standards even at ISO 100 it sucks pretty hard. I can look at those pictures now and see some great ones (bright sunlight, ISO 100) and see some really, really awful ones (any other lighting condition). The monster lens on the MkII will out color, out resolve, and out perform your Kodak as will the sensor.

I own newer cameras, and I know that they're better. And you're right about the 2Mp only working in ISO 100 and sunlight. Well, it did fine on cloudy days too, usually. But I have some spectacular pictures from that camera. I just tried to upload one, but the site wouldn't let me. I'll try again another day. You can easily get a good 8x10 out of many of the 2 Mp captures I made.

So yes, this camera is better, but the EVF issue is a killer for me. I'm an Oly fanboy, and I went with the G1, then G2, GH2, and now G6 for that reason. Olympus blew it with the add-on EVFs. They should have made models with EVFs all along. I live in Florida. Yesterday afternoon I walked on the beach with my wife in bright sunshine. I mean FLORIDA BRIGHT. I took my E-410 and 2 kit lenses. But if I had to take a compact, I would have taken my C8080 rather than this camera. You absolutely can not use a screen effectively under bright conditions. So that's my 2 cents.

I'm just not a viewfinder guy unless I've got my 7D in hand. If it really is super bright outside I either re-orient the LCD or shade it with my hand. And as for good 8X10's, since that is not my standard it is also an unimportant method of measuring a camera's ability. My standard is, when I go out to take pictures then should I happen to capture the image of a lifetime will I be able to print it up to 30X40. That's what I want, the ability to make HUGE prints that still look stunning.

Howard, you make some good points, but you can print any picture at 30x40, even a 2 Mp capture, and it will look good at the right viewing distance. In fact, you can print a billboard from 2Mp and it will look good at the right viewing distance.

You commented upstream about not wanting a crappy OVF. Well, I shot a c7070 for 7 years (sold it, never should have, looking for another one now), and the crappy OVF was a lifesaver many times. It sucked, did not frame correctly, was blurry a lot of the time, but when I needed it, I NEEDED it. So that feature is important to me. I'm sure some people are just trolling against this camera for no reason, but some of us really do look for a crappy OVF or EVF as the first thing on a compact camera spec sheet.

Let's agree on this: This Canon looks like a hell of a camera. I'm not against Canon. I own one Canon camera, my wife owns another, and this camera will please a lot of people. But not me.

I'm not much on equivalencies or moving finish lines. There is no way to make aperture/focal length (real, not equivalent)/subject distance/angle of view into some sore of equivalency across formats. Angle of view, field of view, depth of field all change in specific ways that each format can take different advantage of. The same goes for the viewing distance of prints versus how good the print is, and in my case the default assumption for me is as close as a human can get and still pull good focus. Yep, tack sharp at two inches is what I want.Yes, everyone does have different needs and it's a shame this camera is close but minus the cigar. Perhaps reviews will lead you to finding the optional EVF an acceptable compromise. If not, happy shooting.

With a large sensor and a huge lens with much improved macro, wider focal length, much faster across the zoom, and increased zoom many, meany people will be able to spot what a unique and valuable combination of features this camera offers and won't be turned off by the lack of built-in VF. Anyone who can't spot what a gem this lens is deserves their awesome EVF and horrible images.

Still no legitimate, justifiable reason why camera companies are dropping the optical viewfinder. It all just sounds like cheaper, faster, more production units mojo to me.

I think camera companies could stand a few minutes behind the counter listening to customers complain for a day. Perhaps they'd see things differently. Not every one enjoys holding a camera at an obtuse parallax in relation to what the eye is seeing. People also can't stand not being able to use LCD in bright sunlight, yet another reason a finder was essential.

I agree that an OVF is a seriously good feature for any camera manufacturer to omit from its high end cameras. However, in this market segment, small size seems to trump all else. So, in order to get there, something had to go. As long as the optional EVF from Canon turns out to be a really good one, then as far as I'm concerned, it's a fair trade that makes the camera more appealing to a wider range of potential customers. Yes, it does add to the cost of the kit, but given that this kit comes with a really fast and useful 24 - 120mm lens built in, then price wise, it all balances out. Consider what the cost of a Rebel T5i with an EF-S 15-85 (24-136 equivalent) is. That T5i Comes with the OVF built in, but that excellent EF-S lens adds significantly to the total cost of the kit.

After ~4 years in camera sales, I can tell you that the vast majority of buyers of compacts didn't care at all about viewfinders of any kind, and that was 5 years ago. I'm sure it's even more the case today, with more people shooting on LCDs and EVFs getting light years better.

If you want an EVF that's one thing. There are lots of examples of nice ones in small bodies (NEX, Stylus 1, etc). The OVF in the G1X had to go. Coverage so bad, it couldn't really be used for framing anyway. There's not much else to say- it was crappy.

Don't make it sound like Canon is the only manufacturer not include a viewfinder on a compact camera. Viewfinders are NOT the norm, and most people don't care about one. If they did, they would all stop using the cell phone and buy a 'real" camera with a supposedly necessary viewfinder.

Wow, I am pleasantly surprised. I never thought Canon would release a G1X II after the poor reception the first G1X got. I purchased a G1X and actually sort of liked it. The only two things I disliked were the AF speed and the 4:3 aspect ratio. The G1X II seems to have addressed both my complaints with the first G1X and it has a F2.0-3.9 lens to boot! I will be placing a preorder as soon as it the G1X II is available, it is like Canon read my mind with regards to what I wanted with the G1X II.